A Critique of Noam Chomsky's denial of 9/11 . . .

After 9/11, Was War the Only Option?

Friday 9 September 2011

by: Noam Chomsky, The New York Times Syndicate | Op-Ed

Friends,

Even the New York Times is syndicating Noam Chomsky's views on 911. This article about "what could have been, should have been, could be, might be" is rest on Noam Chomsky's refusal from day one to even consider the possibility that the causes of 911 were something other than the impossible tale that the US Government began to put out an hour after those two gigantic buildings fell at free fall speed into their own footprints. What Noam Chomsky writes in the article is of little importance. What the article assumes without question, that the US Government's story is the truth, is of great importance. As one of the big time gatekeepers of the political middle-left to far-left consciousness and media, once Noam Chomsky bestowed his imprimatur on the US Government's 911 story indicating it was the truth of the matter, political left media and political left peace and justice organizations, including most Christian P&J groups, closed their minds and doors as completely as Rush Limbaugh to consideration of the possible falaciousness of the Government's story. Indeed, the "establishment left" media, e.g., Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews. Lawrence O' Donnell, Ed Schultz, Amy Goodman, etc. regularly trashed the laborious investigatory work and detailed scientific work of 1500 Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, Dr. David Ray Griffin and thousands of others—work that reveals gross, and impossible to reconcile, logical, scientific, and on the scene eye-witness evidence that put the lie to the 911 Commission Report—by referring to them in the derogatory contemporary nomenclature of "truthers" and "conspiracy nuts."

Noam Chomsky's public life has been the pursuit of truth at an extraordinary level of logical cognition. He knows, perhaps better than 99.99% of the people on earth, when someone is trying to pass off 1+1=7 as the truth. So why, when a tsunami of 1+1+7 absurdities is washing over him does he continue to say, "The math seems right to me"?

The issue is truth and only truth. Punishment of those who are responsible for 911, whoever they may be, does not interest me. Human beings have suffered enough punishment at the hands of other human beings to last for an eternity. Immunity from punishment for all involved is the only path to truth. And, truth is so important in the human situation, that such immunity should be granted without strings attached. The US Government's story as represented by the 911 Commission Report is rationally indefensible. It is because it is untenable that no one in authority or in the establishment media or in religion—right, left or middle—tries to defend it in open rational dialogue with those who have put in the intellectual labor to reveal the story as logically and scientifically impossible.

Wouldn't it be proper, right, and good for humanity, if Noam Chomsky would sit down in a public forum, say on Frontline, for an open dialogue with Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin on who and what brought down those three WTC mega-structures at free fall speed in their own footprints, etc.? And if Noam Chomsky won't, you can be sure that the Lawrence O' Donnells, Rachel Maddows, Sean Hannitys, Amy Goodmans and Rush Limbaughs of the world won't.

There are people who are too overwhelmed with personal problems, e.g., sickness, foreclosure on their homes, a child's drug addiction, unemployment, to care about the truth of who and what brought down the three WTC buildings. There are others who are temporarily on a joy ride through life for whom the truth about the 911 event is a non-thought. There are people utterly indifferent to what is or is not the truth of the 911 event because they are well-paid to say what they are told to say, to cover what they are told to cover. Then there are people who do not want to see and/or admit that the US Government's story concerning the human and physical causes of 911 cannot possibly be true because the implications of that are shockingly terrifying in the extreme. Noam Chomsky I believe is in the latter category. When a person of his intellect blocks out or feigns not to see evidence that anyone's eyes can see and proofs that are scientifically valid, and will not even address the issues involved when his entire adult life has been addressing just such issues, something is very wrong. What he is doing is comparable to his saying during the Vietnam War, "I believe the US Government's story that it was the Viet Cong that killed those innocent people at My Lai. All this talk about Lt.William Calley and those in his command doing it and the Government covering it all up is so ridiculous that I am not even going to address the issues being raised."

When a person of Noam Chomsky's intellect and learning does this, that is denies the obvious, he is afraid of something. By this I do not mean in Chomsky's case that he fears for his personal survival nor for his reputation. His personal courage is clear beyond dispute. But then, what is it that he is so afraid of that motivates him to shut down such an exquisite mind in relation 911 and the evidence that has been accumulated by equally competent intellects which reveals grave falsehoods with equally grave implications in the US Government's story? Why must he posture and make believe that there is nothing to be investigated and possibly seen when he knows very well that there is a Mount Everest of prima facieevidence, if not conclusive evidence, that points overwhelmingly to there being something unbearably distressing to be investigated and possibly seen? Whatever it is, it is exactly the same fear that keeps allof the major networks, all the major cable operations, all the major newspaper organizations, indeed all the major media corporations, all the Congress and all the Executive Branch unanimously dead silent on the subject. It is the all that is telltale sign that something not very kosher is going on below the radar.

Imagine if those three WTC giant buildings were not, could not, have been brought to totally collapse in their own footprints by those two planes! What would be the implications to be derived from this one fact? The axial question then whose answer must be truthfully ascertained is this: Could those three buildings have been brought down, free fall speed and in their own footprints by those two planes? The scientific answer to date, 9/11/11, is a resounding, "No." It would be rational in light of his history, if Noam Chomsky specifically addressed that question, even if he did not want to address any of the other evidence that conclusively puts the lie to the US Government's Official 911 Commission Report. Truth has more power to save what he fears will be lost by revealing it, than does human existence operating under the continuing and ever intensifying gravity of lies, fear and murder.

The extreme and dreadful problem with not pursuing the truth in such matters as the mass murder operation of September 11, 2001, as Noam well knows, is innocent victims, and more innocent victims, and still more innocent victims, and ever more innocent victims, and innocent victims without end at home and abroad until the third and fourth generation and even beyond. Such is the unspeakable power of contagion within an unaddressed socially orchestrated deception. An evil that is left unnamed will perpetuate itself with lavish zeal. Exposing lies that destroy is mercy. Ignoring lies that destroy is mercilessness. Supporting lies that destroy is murder.

Emanuel Charles McCarthy

Postscript:

Let us also remember to pray today for the repose of the soul of Salvador Allende who was murdered 38 years ago on September 11, 1773, by Henry Kissinger operating on behalf of the US Government and American multi-national corporations.

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Yes, these left gatekeepers have been a powerful blockage to truth both on the JFK and now 911 front. They are foiling research into these subjects with their powerful media presence. They are another enemy.